My life has been about victories. I’ve won a lot. I win a lot. I win – when I do something, I win. And even in sports, I always won. I was always a good athlete. And I always won. In golf, I’ve won many club championships. Many, many club championships. And I have people that can play golf great, but they can’t win under pressure.

So I’ve always won.”

Donald Trump

=========

“Donald Trump cannot possibly understand [Geneva] because he has neither the experience, the expertise or the moral compass to grasp it,” Geneva is “a fundamental moral and tactical construct that serves as a foundation for the law of armed conflict, because all wars, including the global war on terror, come to an end.

We as a community of nations need to engage with one another and not be separated by horrible, immoral treatment of one side over another.”

——

Steve Kleinman

air force reserve colonel and an interrogations expert

===

Well. I almost called this “whatever serves your purpose.”It seems like every day we talk about winning and, yet, we don’t really spend a shitload of time talking about how we will go about winning.

Donald J. Trump has made me think a lot, like A LOT, about winning and how you conduct yourself in gaining wins .in light of the fact that not everyone conducts themselves the same.

Ah. Conduct.

Yeah. There are some basic human driven rules which 99% of people have imprinted on their attitudes & beliefs that affect their behavior & conduct, but, beyond that, the way you play the game can be dictated by who you are, where you live, who you are playing against and a variety of emotional <and Maslow> triggers.

Now. Today, in discussing conduct, I am not talking about what you say or being ‘political correct’ <which may be the most bastardized discussed concept in this particular point in history> but rather I am speaking of conduct as things like “well, if they chop off heads and we do not doesn’t that give them an edge … so …” … or … “if they are breaking the rules maybe we should relook at the rules <or how we play despite the rules>.”

Those kind of things.

Now. While Trump is a horrible little man ethically <amoral in fact>, he is bringing to the forefront a topic which should be discussed at a national level all the way down to the kitchen table level. This is a discussion about who we are as a country and the identity of America exceptionalism.

I say that because how you play the game matters <especially with regard to character>.

To be clear. Outcomes do matter, but inevitably you get judged or measured on both the outcome AND how you attained that outcome. With Trump blustering about ‘winning’ — maybe we have lost sight of that.

So let’s discuss the ‘how we play’ part. And, yes, this is a discussion because it is not as simple as playing by the rules versus cheating — surprisingly there is a lot of room in-between those lines.

====

“When people cheat in any arena, they diminish themselves – they threaten their own self-esteem and their relationships with others by undermining the trust they have in their ability to succeed and in their ability to be true.”

Cheryl Hughes

===

I will begin in a less than obvious place … truth & lies <and bullshit>.

Yale philosopher Harry Frankfurt outlined in “On Bullsh*t” that there is a difference between BS-ers and liars:

Liars respect the truth, because they must know what it is in order to effectively conceal it. BS-ers are different, in that “truth” is simply not a useful category to them. Any belief is “true” if it serves, if it is convenient. BS-ers have no coherent theory of evidence or of inference, have no need for such things, are contemptuous of reason. In this sense, they are much more corrupting of discourse than liars.

In other words, in order to win, the “truth”, to a bullshitter, will become whatever serves the purpose. I believe this also bleeds into “rules” <which are a version of truths>. I brought that up because I stated upfront almost everyone of us inevitably gets judged by how we got the win, not just the win and of itself. Therefore, I would suggest while outcomes/wins matter we should understand that how you play the game either diminishes you or increases you as a person.

Yes. In today’s world we actually get judged on both aspects … not just one or the other. This leads me to point out that we then get trapped in a personal tug of war — a ‘win at any cost’ attitude is the ultimate reflection of a “respect is about winning” attitude where there is such an emphasis on ‘the win’ we get pulled one way — away from always playing the game “right” and lets the ‘chips fall as they may’.

This is our wretched tug of war.

Winning is absolutely good, but the true essence of sportsmanship is something more than merely getting the most points on the board.

Getting good grades is important but not if it requires cheating.

Getting a promotion is good but not if you do so at the expense of another person.

This is hard stuff. But, if it helps, remember:

How many people do you respect that whine their way to victory?

How many people do you truly respect who has cut corners or ‘won on some technicality’?

I would suggest the notion that ‘winning is the highest value’ runs counter to most usual definitions of heroism, decency and good character. Think about:

Atticus Finch is the hero of To Kill a Mockingbird even though he loses.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a hero but his true victory, while living, was in the attempt.

Ned Stark in Game of Thrones is a hero even though he gets his head chopped off.

Even in business winning isn’t everything. Integrity matters. Integrity matters in business because every sane business leader knows you cannot win every time and your employees need to be able to seize upon ‘something’ to get up and go after the next “what’s next.”

Think about this in a comparison way, while Trump defends his any-means-necessary approach to winning & making as much money as he can <as if that is the only meaningful measure of business greatness>, I could point out many business people who are far richer than Trump who have played the game within the rules with integrity & dignity.

But while I would love to continue to point out the hollowness of The Donald this is, more importantly, about America.

I would argue that in order to have a better America, and a better world, that thinking about ‘how we play the game’ very quickly becomes a metaphorical and reality ethical exercise.

Uhm. As I typed that I made a note to google ethical game theory:

——————

An ethical game is usually not the kind of game that lets us replay a dichotomy of good and evil and, in worst case, denies us to judge between right and wrong. An ethical game design takes the player seriously as an individual with an ethical reasoning developed appropriate to their age, leaving it up to them to make a decision.

For this reason, an ethical game is also in no way a game that treats its players as »moral infants«. It presents the player with ethical challenges just as it poses motoric, exploratory, strategic or logical challenges. Purely abstract game mechanics can’t create an ethical aspect. Ethical challenges can only be generated through portraying them in the game world (and particularly through the story) – and through the medial interaction of the player with it.

Conversely, however, an ethical challenge can create game mechanics, which are never abstract, but result from the conflict in the player’s mind as a very specific challenge in the game world.

————————

Well. When I read that I immediately thought it paralleled what I believe is what we everyday schmucks do, and face, every frickin’ day. The game of life, and business, constantly adjusts to the skill of the players involved. And as reality adjusts those playing get better and better. And, yet, the constant adjusting also demands the players to improve their skills. That demands work. I say that because, uh oh, that is where “rules” truly get challenged.

Work. Yikes. Rather than put in the work to improve the skills to win … uhm … some players ‘do whatever it takes’ or use ‘whatever serves the purpose’ to win. In other words they ‘park’ ethical reasoning somewhere and focus solely on ‘the win.’

This is America in a nutshell. While Life is lived and challenges are met some players’ ethics get nurtured while other players shelve ethical growth so as not … well … not lose. It is here that I would point out this is exactly what Trump is advocating: not losing’ rather than ‘winning.’

Think about it.

Not losing, as an objective, basically makes winning a morally empty principle. The win itself is the glory … and we spend little focus on how you played the game <because the glory resides in the outcome>.

Let me be clear. This can be an attractive thought to most of us everyday schmucks.

Anyone in today’s world, in the daily & weekly grind focusing on all the challenges facing us and mentally taking each obstacle & challenge and, in addition, permitting each to take on a life of its own … could quite easily begin to think everything was going in the wrong direction … in other words … we were losing <and the wins are difficult to see>.

And that mental ‘loser’ hole gets a little deeper if you believe you have been working hard and ‘playing the game hard’ and doing all the right things the right way. And in that moment … in that hole … in that moment in which you are tired of working so hard and not seeing any clear cut victories, you start edging in to “so what will it take for me/us to finally win” <and get out of his loser hole>.

Uh oh. The slippery slope of ‘how you play the game matters’ looms in front of you.

Let me be absolutely clear on this. It is hard, even for the most principled person, to not think about stepping on this slope. Especially when you have someone like Trump shining a spotlight on your thoughts with regard to the ‘loser hole’ and offering a “let’s start winning” again message <with no rules on how to go about getting the win>.

Anyway. Here is what I think.

Trump has seized a moment and offered a ride on a fairly attractive slippery slope. For years, in our culture, America <society> has been in conflict with regard to winning.

Winning is everything versus everyone is a winner.

Conflict 1:Winners get demonized by their win at any cost attitude <and celebrated to the same time>.

Conflict 2:Participants get demonized by their inability to win <and yet celebrated by the victory in the attempt>.

You cannot, well, win.

This conflict is exacerbated by generational conflict. Conceptually the former <winning is everything> is owned by the older generations and the latter <everyone who participates in the game wins> is owned by the younger generations.

The old see their version of winning being marginalized and at exactly the same time they see overall larger country and economic results lagging <or in their eyes … “the country isgoing the way of the loser shithole”>. Therefore, to those people, anyone who dares reject the rules of their game, especially if they do not win, are double losers because they were not smart enough to “do anything it takes to win because winning is everything” we need to get out of this frickin’ loser shithole we are in.

This is where someone like Trump can look attractive to some people. It is like hiring a new coach who looks like he is someone prepared to defy conventions – this creates some exhilaration in the fan base.

“fuck yeah … it’s about time.”

It signals the arrival of a maverick outsider who is not just going to shake things up, but is prepared to destroy to create.

That sounds good.

Well. It is good as long as it is within the rules of the game and by ‘rules’ I mean the true construct of playing the game <Geneva Convention offers specific rules and, of course, there is something called the Constitution and things called ‘laws’ and every sport organization has codes, rules and penalties> as well as the integrity of playing the game.

I admit. I am a ‘play by the rules guy.’And, I admit, Trump’s attitude irks me as a business guy. Here is what I know from a business guy perspective <and I believe it is relevant to America in general>.

Give me the construct, give me the box to play within, and I can be creative enough WITHIN the box to beat anyone. I wrote this in 2015:

This may sound odd <especially to someone like Trump> but true creativity, innovation and disruption is found within the box and not out of the box. Out of the box is most often impractical, not realistic long term and ultimately pales when placed next to ethical principles.

I would also note that winning within the box is maybe the most satisfying feeling in the world.

In the end.

How you win matters. And changing the rules simply to ‘win’ loses sight of what is really important – not the win itself but the principled effort you took to gain the win.

And if that doesn’t convince you, remember, rules represent:

“a fundamental moral and tactical construct that serves as a foundation for the law of conflict, because all conflict comes to an end. <and you have to live with yourself and what you have done>“

“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”

==

Joseph Heller

—————

“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”

==

Uta Hagen

——————

Ok.

One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.

Ok. Maybe better said …“comfort in mediocrity.”

I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, best, new and bla … bla … bla.

That said … mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say and what people say and what they do are often two completely different things. It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?

One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’

“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.

Yeah. I buy that theory.

Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies. Well. Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).

Ok.

To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of the recession in the business world is the creation of the ‘being safe’ attitude versus smart risk taking attitude & behavior. To be clear … I am not sure it’s the recession’s fault but I am trying to be fair.

Regardless.

Companies beware. The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity (in a recession or not in a recession). Interestingly I think companies do beware. It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.

So.

Maybe I should say … Leaders beware. Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.

At the root of mediocrity?

Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen. Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance. And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world. So I am not sure what is breeding this attitude & behavior.

But. Regardless. It’s happening.

And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up. To me .. the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity. It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity. Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.

I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.

1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).

They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.

2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.

Oh. They will bitch. Make some noises.

But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. Worse? They learn to live within it.

3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.

The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff. They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt an organization because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling. It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question. Why are we this way? Why aren’t we growing? Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was? Why, why, why and why again. They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer.

They just keep asking the question.

And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repetition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness. They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.

In the end.

Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.

Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.

And with all that it becomes … well … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity. So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).

If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).

If you are the rest of the world? Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).

Never stop learning.

The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’ And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’ Be committed to never stop learning. From anyone. From any place. At any time.

Develop a passion for something.

There is nothing like passion to create day-to-day energy. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal passion. The best example I found was about Thomas Edison. It stated: Passion inspired Thomas Edison to develop the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.

Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is passion. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.

No quit.

This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.” This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out. This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency. Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.

Ok. So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?

Well.

If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity) I have one word for you. Regret. Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.

Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.

Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet. I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:

I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.

I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.

I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.

Love it.

Leaders should have it up on their wall. Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.

Ok.

But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend. Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship. Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity. Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.

All that said. I am coming to the close on this topic.

Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself). Mediocrity is driven by inertia. So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).

I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.”

Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base). Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.

Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).

Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all). Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center. Or as

Yeats suggests:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”

And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.

Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment. They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being). So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.

And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.

“We don’t own nothin’, we just borrow it. When you die, another man moves in and your daughter calls him daddy. Death is the tax a soul has to pay to have a name and a form.“

———-

Muhammed Ali

========================

Muhammed Ali has died … and I feel like a little oxygen has been sucked out of the atmosphere.

We don’t own nothin’.

That is a Life attitude that could drive a person to greatness. An attitude that says today is temporary and tomorrow I gotta get up and start all over and prove myself one more time.

To me … that summarizes Muhammed Ali.

He was a complicated puzzle to me.

Why?

He wasn’t satisfied to be just a boxer.

He offered none of the humility most of us expect of athletes.

He wasn’t just a great athlete … he was casual competing in his greatness.

And above it all there were personal things bigger than what happened in the ring.

The Ali look.

The Ali rules of life. <As Cassius Clay said “I don’t have to be what you want me to be. I’m free to be who I want.”>

The Ali words and wordsmithing.

The Ali brashness.

The Ali aura.

He never relinquished his right to living life his way.

Did I like it all the time?

Nope.

I disliked the brashness.

But I loved the casual athletic greatness.

And I admired the sense of self … and his stubbornness with regard to maintaining his ‘self’ as society did its best to squeeze it into on existence and be reshaped into what everyone expected greatness to be.

He refused to be defined as it was defined and steadfastly suggested … no … demanded … that he be judged on his own terms.

Was it easy? Nope.

Not on him.

And not on us.

Many of us … me included … balked.

But you know what? In the end he taught me to view greatness differently … and for that I owe him a debt. I owe anyone who can make me see something differently … especially something like ‘greatness.’

That said.

When people say he was the greatest … I don’t agree.

I believe he redefined greatness.

I believe he redefined how generations would view greatness for … well … generations to come.

In fact.

Rethinking what I just wrote … I believe he didn’t just redefine … he destroyed how greatness was defined and created it using himself as the image.

He didn’t own greatness … he defined it. And that said … he did it within his overall attitude … “we got nothin’.”

And, yet, when I saw he died … I felt like I had lost something.

A little oxygen got sucked out of Life.

Why do I say something like that?

I was fortunate enough to be sitting in a restaurant in Los Angeles in the 90’s when Muhammed Ali walked thru to a private room in the back of the restaurant.

Even though no one knew who or what was happening before he arrived … I vividly remember a slight buzz overcoming the main dining room minutes before he appeared.

I vividly remember him gliding thru the room in an impeccable suit surrounded by large men in impeccable suits … but mostly I remember how it felt.

It felt like his presence sucked a little oxygen out of the room. It’s like his presence demanded a little bit more than the rest of us.

“It occurred to me that the voracious ambition of humans is never sated by dreams coming true, because there is always the thought that everything might be done better and again.”

―

John Green

=====

“Oh, it’s delightful to have ambitions. I’m so glad I have such a lot.

And there never seems to be any end to them– that’s the best of it.

Just as soon as you attain to one ambition you see another one glittering higher up still. It does make life so interesting.”

―

L.M. Montgomery

=====

I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

I thought of this when I recently saw the fabulous new documentary about Janis Joplin < Janis Joplin: Little Girl Blue> and I scribbled down something she said:

“… at 27 i realized there are a lot of people with talent, the difference is ambition.”

Talent is talent.

Smarts are smarts.

And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

Okay.

Let me say … it is a tough thing to wrap your head around.

Its not that you truly want to be the most talented, the smartest or the most expert … most of us don’t really care … you just want to feel that at some point you are smart, talented and an expert at something. And when surrounded by people of similar talents, smarts and expertise … well … it is hard to feel that.

And what may be worse <to someone like me who would like to be judged on the raw capabilities> is that often the difference is … well … ambition.

Look.

I think anyone with any amount of talent or smarts or some expertise wants to reach a place where you are not only the best you can be but just … well … be good. I mean … be really good at something. It doesn’t have to be some high falutin’ title or gobs of money thrown at you … you just want to feel a glimmer of being the best at some moment.

And even with all of the talent swirling around out there in the world I do believe it is attainable.

But in achieving this I believe you actually have to get as close to the soul of who & what you are.

Talent only takes you so far.

Smarts only take you so far.

And even the drive of ambition can only really take you so far.

You gotta let your ambition be ignited by that little flame inside you which ends up firing the ambition to greater heights than just the talent & smarts you have.

But.

This means you have to “give” a little to “get” a little <if not a lot>.

Now.

This is kind of dangerous from a personal perspective.

You may not initially think accessing this little flame space inside you would be dangerous … but it really is kind of a dangerous place, or at least fraught with peril, that place inside you where your soul, passion for what you desire & ambition resides.

And maybe worse?

It is a little dangerous even if you balance it all fairly well.

It is dangerous because to be as good as you can be you gotta give a little of yourself up to feed your talent and ambition to grow it beyond the normal levels.

And each level can be so addictive or pleasurable you have a tendency to want to feed it a little more.

That is the price one must pay to reach the heights of ‘as good as you can be.’

Of course … in doing so … it becomes doubly dangerous … first is that you can easily make the flame inside burn a little too bright and you get fried from the inside out <or you simply get blinded and lose perspective> … second is that you can reach a height where you end up getting burned <you reach beyond your natural smarts, talent & expertise>.

And that is where the balance of talent & ambition comes into play.

When and where to stop.

And this is hard.

Really hard.

You would think there would be some stop signs … or, like growing up, you recognize you have stopped growing and are at the height you will be for the rest of your Life.

But you don’t.

Heights with regard to ambition and being a good as you can be is something where you always feel like you can grow another inch, foot, or yard.

To be clear.

I do not believe ambition is the most important tool to achieving success.

I do not believe ambition is more important than talent, smarts/savviness or access to the proper resources.

But I do believe ambition can be the difference maker all things being equal.

That said … I do get tired of all the self-help books suggesting that ambition and determination alone will help you achieve your desired success regardless of talent and ability.

It is a silly if not misguided idea. Think about it.

While we certainly can find some people who overreached their talent & smarts we also all know people who are aspiring to something which they simply do not have the ability to achieve. I read somewhere … “highly motivated people without ability can do stupid things.”

An ambitious attitude can engender the perseverance to guide one to some success and, ultimately, I imagine some version of self-satisfaction … as well as some stupidity.

The will, the desire, maybe even the dream to be & do something is absolutely a powerful personal engine. And sometimes, maybe even often, it can get you a little farther than your natural abilities may have taken you all on their own.

Ambition can certainly help in maximizing talent because it can sometimes be the motivation to not only work hard … but maybe work a little harder than you may have wanted to.

Ambition does have a nice habit of insuring you don’t waste what talent you do have.

But it doesn’t guarantee maximizing potential.

It doesn’t because more often than not ambition isn’t born with a naturally smart compass … it simply powers you in the direction you choose <which is not always the direction you should go>.

Hey.

I am not anti-ambition.

In fact … I think the way society looks at ambition is misguided. Far too often it suggests ambition as a bad thing as it mistakenly always ties it to greed, narcissism or desire for power.

Certainly ambition can drive someone to cut corners and to assume “you do what you need to do to get where you want.” Ambition can, not always, muffle the voice of ethical behavior.

But making that a blanket generalization is a mistake.

Here is what I can tell you from a personal point of view.

I was not, and am not, particularly ambitious but I did recognize that being in the zone in work was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Leaving that zone was always a little emptier than when in that zone. And all I could often think of was getting back into the zone.

My only real ambition was to be in the game and the best game I could be in.

I also realized that for me to play that game well I had to ‘give a little of me’ to ‘get the best out of me.’

Did I balance it well?

Shit.

I don’t know.

I doubt it.

All I know is that while I may not have acted like it in my career and Life <and I am sure I often miscommunicated this feeling many times> I have known there is always someone smarter, more talented and have significantly more expertise than I in any given situation and at any given time.

And because of that I was consistently humbled and challenged … equally.

That was my balance.

As for everyone else?

When I look around in the workplace and tables in some bar as people debate issues and problems I am fairly sure that this balancing talent & ambition & reality is hard.

Ambition, and talent as well, demands a lot of you.

It would be far too easy for me to suggest that ambition demands some sort of dedication to hard work, focus, some sacrifice and honing of some expertise.

I actually think ambition, not blind ambition, demands you to not settle.